DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 4/28/2026. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In response to Applicant’s argument that while the user’s feet are shown partially inside the approach area in figure 1, the trajectory x’(t), y’(t) represents the user leaving the approach area (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 9), it is noted that figure 1 appears to contradict the written description. Page 10, line 29, to page 11, line 4, disclose the user trajectory indicates the “location of the entire body of the user”. Page 14, lines 7-8, disclose the user trajectory x’(t), y’(t) indicates the user leaving the approach area, however, figure 1 shows the “entire body of the user” does not leave the approach area on the trajectory x’(t), y’(t). It is unclear if the presence of the user is based on their trajectory or their entire body. See objection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the authentication unit should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim does not use the word “means” (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), it is noted that a claim element may be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder, see MPEP § 2181(I)(A). The “authentication unit” includes the non-structural term “unit” for performing the function of “authentication” and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the authentication. An authentication unit is not inherently an electronic key, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize the authentication unit is an electronic key without consulting the specification. See claim interpretation below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that claim 10 includes sufficient detail for the authentication unit to avoid the means plus function interpretation (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 10 discloses the authentication unit is detected by the control arrangement. The term unit does not have a specific structural meaning, and the functions of authentication and being detected are not modified by sufficient acts for achieving each function. See claim interpretation below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/6/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation, in English, of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the following references listed that are not in the English language: DE 102016220084 (citation number F-2) and “German Search Report” (citation number L-1). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed 1/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation, in English, of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of the following reference listed that is not in the English language: “Communication pursuant to Article 94(3)” (citation number L-1). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The listing of references in the specification, on page 1, line 18, is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The amended drawings were received on 4/28/2026.
The drawings are objected to because:
In figure 1, it is unclear how the trajectory x’(t),y’(t) demonstrates the user temporarily leaving the approach area portion because both of the user’s feet never leave the approach area.
In figures 2a-2c, it is unclear how the radar targets are represented by two angles. Page 11, line 31, to page 12, line 2, disclose figure 2a shows radar targets from the viewpoint of the radar sensor as a function of the detection angle, however, there does not appear to be disclosure of a second radar angle.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendments to the abstract and the specification were received on 4/28/2026.
The corrected abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is presented with amendments to the specification. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the replacement paragraph starting on page 9, line 21, “Frequency Modulate Continuous Wave” should read “Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave”. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 13, lines 5 and 4-5, respectively, “the sensor values comprises a speed value” should read “the sensor values comprise a speed value”. This appears to be a typographical error.
In claim 8, line 3, the meaning of the phrase “with the qualification as valid user action” is unclear because it does not use proper idiomatic English. The Examiner suggests the phrase should read “when the valid user action is qualified”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an authentication unit”, i.e., a unit that authenticates, in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Page 7, line 12, discloses an authentication unit is an electronic key, therefore, an authentication unit will be interpreted to be an electronic key and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 10, 12-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, lines 1-3 the limitation “the approach area portion is passed through … within a prescribed approach period” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the prescribed approach period is different from the period of time the trajectory runs within the approach area in claim 5, lines 2-3, therefore, it is unclear how the trajectory specification is defined. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the period of time may be the prescribed approach period.
Regarding claim 10, lines 6-7, the limitation “a position value of the authentication unit determined by the detection of the authentication unit” renders the claim indefinite because is unclear how the position of the authentication unit is determined by merely detecting its presence. Page 15, lines 21-30, appear to disclose the radar is used to identify the position of the user when the authentication unit is detected. Page 16, line 2, further discloses comparing the position of a detected object, e.g., a potential user, with the position of the authentication unit, however there does not appear to be disclosure of determining the position of the authentication unit itself. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to correlating the position of a detected person with the detection of the authentication unit.
Regarding claim 12, lines 1-2, the limitation “one of the user action criteria relates to the recognition of a prescribed user gesture” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the prescribed user gesture is related to the valid user action qualified in claim 1, lines 7-8. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the valid user action is the prescribed user gesture.
Regarding claim 13, lines 12-13, the limitation "performs a time-dependent association of detected sensor values with the user" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the sensor values are the same sensor values relating to a user action of a user detected in lines 3-4. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claim is directed to a single set of radar sensor values.
Regarding claim 13, lines 13-14, the limitation "determines a user trajectory for the position of the user" renders the claim indefinite because the user’s position lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim which makes it unclear if their position is defined by the user trajectory or measured by the sensor values. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the user trajectory is defined by positions of the user at different times.
Regarding claim 15, line 4, the limitation "representative of a user" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the user is the same user recited in claim 1, lines 4. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that both claims are directed to the same user.
Regarding claim 16, lines 1-2, the limitation “the speed values represent an approach” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the approach is related to the prescribed approach represented by the speed value of the user in claim 1, lines 17-19. For the purposes of examination, it will be assumed that the claims are directed to the same approach.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 10-11, 13-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku et al. (US 2022/0041133) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 208060701), hereinafter Rrumbullaku and Zhang, respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, as best understood, Rrumbullaku discloses a method for operating a motorized flap arrangement of a motor vehicle, wherein a control arrangement for activating a motorized drive arrangement assigned to the flap arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 30: SAM 123 may primarily perform functions related to providing access to the vehicle 101 through door 143 by commanding one or more actuators to, for example, unlock, unlatch and/or open the door) and a radar sensor coupled to the control arrangement are provided, wherein sensor values relating to a user action of a user situated outside of the motor vehicle are detected by the radar sensor (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: The radar system becomes active at block (211) to effect the approach-based door actuation functions and begins to radiate.), wherein the detected sensor values are checked, by the control arrangement, for the fulfillment of prescribed user action criteria, wherein, depending on a result of the check, the user action detected via the sensor values is rejected or is qualified as a valid user action (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: the tracked person whose trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with the active trajectory zone 138 is checked for entry into the active radar zone), and wherein, upon detection of the valid user action, the control arrangement activates the drive arrangement for the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: Until entry into the active radar zone 136, block (235) continues to monitor. Upon entry, however, block (235) exits to block (237) whereat additional verification of the continued existence of the tracked person in the active radar zone 136 is performed … If validated, block (245) causes BCM 115 to command … the door actuator to open the door 143.), wherein, in a user tracking routine, a time-dependent association of the detected sensor values with the user is performed by the control arrangement (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: a single person's trajectory may be tracked at block (231)), a user trajectory for a position of the user is determined from the time dependence of the sensor values associated with the user (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include such information as a tracked target's dynamic vectoring, for example, a tracked object's distance or range, position (present and future predicted), and velocity including rate and direction of travel over time.), and at least one user action criterion is defined by the fact that the user trajectory complies with a trajectory specification (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235). Otherwise, the routine continues to monitor and evaluate the trajectory at block (233).), wherein the user tracking routine is triggered upon fulfillment of a prescribed user recognition criterion to represent a prescribed approach toward the motor vehicle (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: the radar system monitors for objects within the passive radar zone 135. The radar system continues to monitor at block (223) and when an object is detected may proceed to block (225) where the radar system may partially validate the object by classification … Classification of a detected object as a person at block (225) may result in a differentiation among multiple persons at block (227). Multiple persons may cause block (229) to focus the radar system tracking on the person closest to the active radar zone 136 for example. Regardless, a single person's trajectory may be tracked at block (231)).
Rrumbullaku does not explicitly disclose the sensor values comprise a speed value of the user, and the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the speed value of the user.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor (radar pedestrian tracking), discloses radar sensor values comprise a speed value (Zhang; para. 41: the microwave sensor performs preprocessing … Signal preprocessing mainly involves … determining the velocity) of a person (Zhang; para. 87: the classification and recognition of … pedestrian targets can be completed), and a prescribed user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the speed value of the person (Zhang; para. 83: Then, in S7, the category to which any of the set of dots belongs is classified and identified.
There are various types of targets (humans, vehicles) within the detection range, and their motion patterns differ.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the person classification performed before tracking their trajectory in the radar system of Rrumbullaku, to include the person’s velocity measured by the radar, as disclosed by Zhang, with the motivation of achieving accurate classification and identification of multiple targets, especially to help distinguish weak targets that are adjacent in location (Zhang; para. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the user trajectory runs within a prescribed approach area portion at least over a period of time (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include … velocity including rate and direction of travel over time. If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235).; para. 34: a trajectory consistent with vector 153 would intersect with active trajectory zone 138 but may be unacceptable because it may conflict with the path of travel of door 143 unless the rate of approach suggests the tracked person would clear the door swing in advance of opening).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the approach area portion is passed through by the user trajectory within a prescribed approach period (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: Trajectory as used herein is understood to include … velocity including rate and direction of travel over time. If the tracked person's trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone at block (233), then the routine continues at block (235).; para. 34: a trajectory consistent with vector 153 would intersect with active trajectory zone 138 but may be unacceptable because it may conflict with the path of travel of door 143 unless the rate of approach suggests the tracked person would clear the door swing in advance of opening).
Regarding claim 7, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses a confirmation area portion is provided between the motor vehicle and the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 34: an active trajectory zone may correspond to a region primarily defined within the active radar zone 136, yet further limited in distance or range from the vehicle 101. An exemplary active trajectory zone 138 illustrated in FIG. 1 may be within the active radar zone but further limited to within a predetermined range) and the trajectory specification meets the user trajectory in the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 35: the tracked person whose trajectory indicates an acceptable intersection with the active trajectory zone 138 is checked for entry into the active radar zone 136).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses an actuation criteria is defined by the fact that an authentication unit is detected by the control arrangement, wherein the detection of the sensor values by the control arrangement is triggered upon detection of the authentication unit (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: an authenticated security token within the passive RF zone 139 will cause the PEPS system to fully wake to a more active monitoring state and may cause additional vehicle systems to wake at block (207) including SAM 123 causing the radar system to wake at block (209). The radar system becomes active at block (211) to effect the approach-based door actuation functions), and/or that the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that a position value, determined from the sensor values of the radar sensor, of the user detected in the sensor values corresponds to a position value of the authentication unit determined by the detection of the authentication unit.
Regarding claim 11, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the radar sensor is designed for a vehicle-to-X application, wherein the radar sensor is designed for a vehicle-to-vehicle application in a driving mode (Rrumbullaku; para. 29: radar sensor 127 is shown at the driver side of the vehicle … side positioning of sensor 127 may be more preferred with respect to sensing adjacent vehicles in an anti-collision system) and is used for detecting the sensor values relating to the user action when the motor vehicle is parked (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: method 200 may begin the routine at block (201) where the vehicle 101 is, for example, not occupied and not being operated such as after being parked), and/or the radar sensor is designed to detect objects or the user in a displacement region of the motorized displacement of the flap arrangement.
Regarding claim 14, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the motor vehicle (Rrumbullaku; fig. 1: vehicle 101) for carrying out the method as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the user trajectory passes through at least two prescribed approach windows of the approach area portion (Rrumbullaku; para. 32: The passive radar zone 135 may overlay, in whole or in part, the passive RF zone 139. Similarly, the radar system defines an active radar zone 136 to a distance of, for example, about 1.5-2 meters.).
Claim(s) 4, 9, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2022/0309835), hereinafter Hu.
Regarding claim 4, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Although Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the user recognition criterion is based on combining a plurality of radar targets in a cluster model to form a cluster target (Zhang; paras. 71-72), the cluster model is used for target classification before starting user tracking, therefore, Rrumbullaku, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the user tracking routine, a plurality of radar targets detected in the sensor values are combined in accordance with a cluster model to form a cluster target, the cluster target is associated with the user in a time-dependent manner and the user trajectory is determined on the basis of the cluster target.
Hu, in a reasonably field of endeavor (pedestrian detection and tracking), discloses in a user tracking routine, a plurality of radar targets detected in sensor values (Hu; para. 74: After obtaining radar data, the footstep points are extracted by dynamic point extraction, point clustering) are combined in accordance with a cluster model to form a cluster target (Hu; para. 132: The center point of each cluster is the representative point of all points in the point cluster, which is used to represent the position of the footstep candidate. The invention takes the average of point coordinates in the cluster as the cluster center feature.), the cluster target is associated with a user in a time-dependent manner (Hu; para. 75: when human is detected, relevant walking information will be output and saved to files, including walking speed, length of footsteps and other information) and a user trajectory is determined on the basis of the cluster target (Hu; para. 74: Footsteps are tracked by using trajectory matching).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination, using RADAR measurements, of the tracked person's location, speed, and trajectory by the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to identify the location of the person's feet by identifying the center point of a cluster of point coordinates, as disclosed by Hu, to yield the predictable result of accurately determining the positions and paths of people near the vehicle.
Regarding claim 9, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku, as modified, does not explicitly disclose in the user tracking routine, the detected, time-dependent sensor values are associated with the user on the basis of a mathematical estimation model.
Hu discloses in a user tracking routine, detected, time-dependent sensor values are associated with a user on the basis of a mathematical estimation model (Hu; para. 145: The invention employs Kalman filter algorithm to build a dynamic system, model the footsteps, and track the walking trajectory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to use a Kalman filter, as disclosed by Hu, to determine, using RADAR measurements, the tracked person's trajectory in the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, as modified, with the motivation of avoiding temporary losses in the tracking process, such as footsteps being blocked by environmental objects (Hu; para. 147) thereby improving reliability.
Regarding claim 17, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the cluster model is based on the determination of a cluster target using statistical values of radar targets (Hu; para. 137: The invention uses the trained random forest model to recognize the point clusters, classify the clusters into foot class and non-foot class.), selected using position values (Hu; para. 132: The center point of each cluster is the representative point of all points in the point cluster, which is used to represent the position of the footstep candidate. The invention takes the average of point coordinates in the cluster as the cluster center feature.), amplitude values and/or speed values.
Regarding claim 20, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the estimation model is based on an alpha-beta filter, a Kalman filter (Hu; para. 145: The invention employs Kalman filter algorithm to build a dynamic system, model the footsteps, and track the walking trajectory) and/or a nonlinear filter.
Claim(s) 8, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Tamura (US 2021/0301580).
Regarding claim 8, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a plurality of motorized flap arrangements are provided, for which an approach area portion is prescribed, and, with the qualification as valid user action, using the user trajectory and the approach area portions the user action is assigned to one of the flap arrangements for the motorized displacement.
Tamura, in the same field of endeavor (vehicle access control systems), discloses a plurality of motorized flap arrangements are provided, for which an approach area portion is prescribed, and, with a qualification as valid user action, using a user trajectory and the approach area portions the user action is assigned to one of the flap arrangements for motorized displacement (Tamura; paras. 75-76: the direction specifying unit 111A acquires the images captured at predetermined intervals when the user is present in the communication area A2 … Thereafter, the direction specifying unit 111A determines whether or not the feet F of the user are present in the recognition area A3 … When the feet F of the user are present in the first recognition area A31, the direction specifying unit 111A turns on a flag indicating that the door which the user intends to operate is the slide door 41. Meanwhile, when the feet F of the user are present in the second recognition area A32, the direction specifying unit 111A turns on a flag indicating that the door which the user intends to operate is the back door 42. Namely, the direction specifying unit 111A determines whether the door which the user wants to operate is the slide door 41 or the back door 42, based on the position where the user stands.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the vehicle of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to include multiple activation areas corresponding with different doors, as disclosed by Tamura, to yield the predictable result of opening the door an approaching person most likely intends to use.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku, as modified, does not explicitly disclose one of the user action criteria relates to the recognition of a prescribed user gesture, wherein the prescribed user gesture is to be carried out after an approach area portion has been walked through.
Tamura discloses a user action criterion relates to recognition of a prescribed user gesture (Tamura; fig. 10, S19: is gesture detected?), wherein the prescribed user gesture is to be carried out after an approach area portion has been walked through (Tamura; fig. 10, S34: are feet of user present in recognition area?).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the additional verification, by the EOC module, of the continued existence of the tracked person in the active radar zone of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to require the person to perform a gesture in a specific area, as disclosed by Tamura, with the motivation of suppressing a gesture from being detected based on a moving object which is not the user (Tamura; para. 53) thereby improving the accuracy of detection of the gesture (Tamura; para. 55).
Regarding claim 19, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed as described above.
Rrumbullaku, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that the user trajectory experiences a stopping motion in the confirmation area portion, wherein a maximum speed is not reached and/or a minimum residence time in the confirmation area portion is exceeded.
Tamura discloses a trajectory specification is at least partially defined by the fact that a user trajectory experiences a stopping motion in a confirmation area portion, wherein a maximum speed is not reached and/or a minimum residence time in the confirmation area portion is exceeded (Tamura; para. 93: when a moving object moving in the imaging area A1 stops in the recognition area A3 for a predetermined time, the direction specifying unit 111 may determine that the moving object is the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination by the EOC module that the tracked person has entered the limited active trajectory zone of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to require the person to stop for a minimum amount of time in a specific area, as disclosed by Tamura, with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of determining the direction of the user (Tamura; para. 93).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hornung et al. (US 2020/0011656), hereinafter Hornung.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses the user tracking routine is triggered upon fulfillment of a prescribed user recognition criterion (Rrumbullaku; para. 33: the radar system monitors for objects within the passive radar zone 135. The radar system continues to monitor at block (223) and when an object is detected may proceed to block (225) where the radar system may partially validate the object by classification … Classification of a detected object as a person at block (225) may result in a differentiation among multiple persons at block (227). Multiple persons may cause block (229) to focus the radar system tracking on the person closest to the active radar zone 136 for example. Regardless, a single person's trajectory may be tracked at block (231)).
It is unclear if Rrumbullaku, as modified, explicitly discloses the user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that the detected sensor values comply with an expansion specification representative of a user.
Hornung, in a reasonably pertinent field of endeavor (user monitoring systems), discloses a user recognition criterion is at least partially defined by the fact that detected sensor values comply with an expansion specification representative of a user (Hornung; para. 58: There is additionally another object 28 that cannot be identified in any more detail and could be an article or a false detection. If it is beneath the minimum size, it can be ignored; otherwise it must be recognized as a person).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the classification of a detected objected as a person by the radar system of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to include a minimum required size, as disclosed by Hornung, to yield the predictable result of ignoring objects that are too small to be a person.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rrumbullaku in view of Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thilo et al. (DE 102 34 291), hereinafter Thilo.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Rrumbullaku, as modified, discloses, in paragraph 33, the tracked person's trajectory must indicate an acceptable intersection with an active trajectory zone, therefore, the person inherently must be moving towards the vehicle with a speed greater than zero.
However, Thilo, in the same field of endeavor (automatic door controls), explicitly discloses speed values represent an approach exceeding a prescribed minimum speed (Thilo; para. 12: a further evaluation can be carried out to determine whether at
least one object is approaching the door at a specified minimum speed. In such cases, the distance and/or direction of this object can be used to determine whether it is likely approaching the door with the intention of passing through or is merely passing near the door by chance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the acceptable trajectory of the tracked person by the EOC module of Rrumbullaku, as modified, to include a minimum approach speed, as disclosed by Thilo, with the motivation of determining whether it is likely a person approaches the door with the intention of passing through or is merely passing near the door by chance thereby controlling the automatic triggering of an actuator much more sensitively with less effort (Thilo; para. 12).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571)270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights